Recommendations for controlling prison population growth : a response to HB 1483 /

C5700.3 P8311984 c. 2
OKLAHOMA STATE
BOARD OF CORRECTIONS
Recommendations for Controlling
Prison Population Growth:
A Response to HB 1483
November 29, 1984
OKLAHOMA PUBLICATIONS Cl£~~'"Q"QU~\
OKLAHOMA OEPARTMENT OF'LIBRf\RlU
200 N. E. 18th ST.
OKLAHOMA erN, OK 13-105 ..
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
3~OO N. EASTERN - ? O. BOX i 1H3
1"'\ v, ~ U("'\,\A ~ r-ITV t"\V! '\ ~.~ \4 .,. 7"!! 1
Oklahoma State Board of Corrections
Recommendations for Controlling
Oklahoma's Prison Population
Introduction
In House Bill 1483, the Oklahoma Board of Corrections was directed by the
State Legislature to present "recommendations for reducing prison population,
accomodating projected needs for prison population and cost-saving measures ••••"
The purpose of this report is to present those recommendations in the context of
past and present prison population control efforts in Oklahoma and the rest of
the nation.
The pressures of prison population growth nationwide have forced states to
investigate numerous alternatives to incarceration. Oklahoma is among those
states t hat have developed a variety of options for limiting prison population
while still providing ef f ect Lve sanctions for offenders. In fact, many of the
programs which are now being recognized and adopted elsewhere as effective means
of population control are already being used in Oklahoma.
At the t Lme the request for recommendations was made by the Legislature,
prison population growth was a primary concern of the Department of Corrections.
However, because of the emergency "cap" legislation and programs such as that fur
DUI offenders, the expansion of the House Arrest program and the increased
capacity of facilities, the need to invoke emergency release legislation has
been removed. It: is expected that continued development and utilization of
options other than "cap" will make it unnecessary in the foreseeable future to
rely on emergency release of prisoners to control prison population. Indeed, the
recommendations presented here are made with the aim of maintaining the control
over prison population which has now been regained in Oklahoma.
Background
It has been noted that three factors contribute to prison population
overcrowdt ng : the number of offenders sent to prison, the length of time they
stay in prison, and the capacity of the prison to which they are sent. Over the
past decade, the numbers of persons being sent to prison have increased
drastically nationwide and new legislation has often created harsher sanctions
1
with longer sentences. Oklahoma has been no exception; the prison population in
this state more than doubled from the end of 1974 through 1983, climbing from
3,230 to 7,480 inmates.1 Oklahoma was one of only five states to report yearly
increases in prison poptilationof at least 10 percent from 1980 through 1983. In
1983, Oklahoma had one of the highest incarceration rates in the country, 212
inmates per 100,000 state population.2 At its highest in April 1984, the prison
population surpassed 8,000.3 The state's incarceration rate was then about 240
per 100,000. These increases were caused not only by changes in crime, apprehen-sion
and prosecution, but also by harsher statutory sanctions. New laws passed
during the precedi~g decade provided minimum mandatory periods of incarceration
for repeat offenders so more inmates were staying in prison longer.
Nationally, efforts to offset these two forces driving prison population
increases have often centered on increasing the capacity of institutions.
According to one report, "The overcrowdi.ng crisis••• produced an unprecedented
national spending binge on corrections construction. From 1979 to 1980, con-struction
expenditures rose from $74 million to $560 million; by 1982, they had
more than doubled again, to $946 million.,,4 In Oklahoma, new facilities were
built, old ones were expanded and existing buildings were acquired from other
agencies. The corrections budget rose from about $18 million in FY75 to over
$110 million in FY85.
Construction is still the solution of choice in sorae states. In Hichigan
and Pennsylvania, recent requests have been made for budget allocations to
increase prison capacity.5 With the impetus of a court order, Ohio has made
plans to spend $638 million on new construction and renovation which they hope to
finance by selling bonds. In California, $1.2 billion has been budgeted for new
construction alone.6 Corey and Gettinger4 make the point that "the cost of
construction, staggering as it is, is only the beginning •••• The cost of
building a prison is only the down payment; operating costs will soon outstrip
it. The operating costs for 100,000 new prison beds would be $70 billion over
the next 30 years--not counting inflation."
Within the last few years, an increasing number of such assessments of the
construction solution to prison overcrowdang have provided evidence that other
solutions must be tried. "Alternatives to incarceration" has become an oft-used
phrase to describe those options which seek to limit the cumber of people sent
to prison and the length of time they stay there. The National Institute for
Sentencing Alternatives. the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives,
"L
the National Center for Effective Public Policy, as well as other local and
national organizations have focused their efforts on, not only identifying the
problems of incarceration, but also identifying feasible and acceptable alterna-tives.
In the following two sections, case disposition options available in
Okldhoma and in other states are reviewed.
Programs Used in Oklahoma and Other States
Commonly Used Alternatives. In January 1984, the District Attorneys Training
Coordination Council produced a list of sixteen statutory alternatives to incar-ceration
which may be invoked in Oklahoma:7
1. Fines
2. Forfeitures
3. County Jail Time
4. Confinement in a Drug Treatment or Rehabilitation Facility
5. Commitment to an Approved Drug or Alcohol Treatment Facility
6. Deferred Judgment (sometimes referred to as Deferred Sentencing)
7. Deferred Prosecutions
8. Suspended Sentences which may include
a. probation
b. restitution to the victim
c. reimbursement to state agencies for a victim's hospital and medical
expense
d. community service without compensation
e. payment to a trust fund for a victim
9. Split Sentences (part served, part suspended)
10. Night or weekend incarceration in a county jail
11. Referral to the Bogus Check Restitution program
12. Paroles
13. Department of Corrections statutory administrative reduction in sentences
for good time credits, work credits, education credits
14. Nonviolent Intermediate Offender Act (NIO)
15. Sentence modification after 120-day review (120JR)
16. Dispute Resolution Act
Among the sentencing options described above are many which are used in one
form or another in other states.
Assoc1..at10n 8f ouna'h t at the most
A recent report from the American Corrections
often used alternatives to incarceration
were probation, split sentences and shock probation, restitution, community
9 service and fines. According to the annual Felony Disposition Summary of the
Arrest Disposition Reporting System, the District Attorneys' information system,
25.3 percent of the sentenced felony cases were given probation in 1983, 15.2
3
percent were given split sentencest 24.5 percent received deferred judgments and
3.9 percenr received fines only. Unfortunately, some of the options listed above
(e.g., deferred prosecutio~, night or weekend incarceration, NIO) 120JR and
dispute resolution) are not being recorded, or are being under-reported) so an
accurate assessment of the extent to which these alternatives are being used is
not currently possible.
Alcohol Abuse Programs. One significant addition to the preceding list was made
during the 1984 legislative session under HB1034. The law provides that eligi-ble
persons incarcerated for DUI are to be assigned to the Department of Mental
Health for substance abuse treatment. This program will substantially expand the
Alternatives to Incarceration for Drunk Drivers (AIDD) program that already
operates in Western State Hospital and is much like one proposed by the Florida
Overcrowding Task ForcelO for that state.
Individual Punishment Plans. The aforementioned National Center on Institutions
and Alternatives (NCIA) directs a program for "the development of effective
alternatives to incarceration consistent with public safety." Under their
Client Specific Planning, NCIA has "worked directly with defense attorneys to
develop individualized J highly-structured, alternative to prison, sentencing
plans" which consider the client's resources and the community's needs. 11 In
order to administer the non-violent intermediate offender and 120-day judicial
review programs in Oklahoma, the Department of Corrections has established a
similar.procedure for case handling. For each qualifying inmate, a Specialized
Offender Accountability Plan (SOAP) is developed based on a thorough assessment
of the person's criminal history, f£mily support, skills, social, psychological
and training needs. These plans, which may require restitution and fine pay-ment
s, community service and treatment program participation, are submitted to
the court directly, rather than through a defense attorney. For the non-violent
youthful offender who had previously been given an indeterminate sentence, the
plan takes effect after fifteen days if not challenged. About 80 percent of the
plans have been accepted as proposed. On the other hand, the 120-day judicial
review offenders receive a specific sentence from the court before being incar-cerated.
Alternative plans have been deemed appropriate and developed by the
Department for about half of these cases. However, the courts have been reluc-tant
to change sentence~ already decided and only about seven percent of those
plans have been accepted.
4
Emergency Powers Legislation. In 1984, Senate Bill 445 was enacted as the
Oklahoma prison overcrowding emergency powers act. The "cap" legisla tion, as it
is called, permits awarding 60 days of emergency time credit to qualified
offenders when the prison population exceeds 95 percent of capacity. After its
first use, the emergency powers act may be invoked every 60 days while population
exceeds the capacity limit. Oklahoma's law is similar to legislation passed in
Michigan according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.2 As a direct result of
their emergency powers act, the Hichigan prison population decreased by six
percent in 1983. Three other states with over 10,000 inmates, Florida, Texas and
North Carolina, had declining populations in 1983 and all had early release
programs.
Oklahoma's "cap" legislation was first invoked in May 1984, then again in
July and September. The impact of those 487 emergency releases, combined with
the effects of other Departmental programs, has been to nearly halt the state's
previously rapid prison population growth. This means that, for the first time
since 1979, Oklahoman's may have hope that the state's prison population growth
has become manageable and that the Corrections budget will reflect this
stability.
House Arrest Programs. Another bill considered by the 1984 legislature is
significant because it was not passed. Passage of the mandatory community
supervision legislation was thwarted by the Governor's threatened veto. Instead
it was suggested that the same control could be gained through expansion of the
existing House Arrest Program. Based on direction from the Governor, President
Pro Tempore of the Senate and Speaker of the House, and with budgetary support,
the Department has moved forward with development and implementation of this
program.
House Arrest provides an effective means of re-integrating offenders into
the community in a productive role while ensuring close supervision and control.
When fully implemented, it will also provide the Department a means of main-taining
the control over growth of the incarcerated population that has been
established by emergency release and other programs and legislative action.
A similar program called Community Control has been developed in Florida.
"The 'community con t r ol ees ' as they are called, are confined to their homes
under 'house arrest' except during hours of employment or other activities
approved by t he Commun. lty Cantra 1 Off l.cer. ,,12
5
In Oklahoma, offenders are monitored closely by Correctional Officers. To
ensure this close supervision, House Arrest officers' caseloads are smaller than
the typical Probation and Parole officer's. The offender is required to be gain-fully
employed at all times and residing at an approved residence. The offender
must also report to a prison weekly and submit a report of weekly activities.
Program support fees, restitution, court costs and victim compensation are
required of house arrestees, as we l l as participation in group or counseling
activities.
Programs of Other States Not Used in Oklahoma
Community Corrections. The Iowa State Legislature has developed legislation
to establish a "judicial district department of correctional services" in each
judicial district of the state to "furnish or contract for those services
necessary to provide a community-based correctional program which meets the needs
of that judicial district." The program is designed to "supervise and assist
individuals who are charged with or have been convicted of a felony, an aggra-vated
misdemeanor or a serious misdemeanor." The state department of social
servi ces is designated to allocate state funds for di strIbut Lon to approved
13 programs.
A National Institute of Corrections report14 has recommended "involvement
of offenders in community service" because it may "reduce public stereotypes
about offenders and increase public involvement in and awareness of the criminal
justice system." In addition, "invaluable services are afforded to the communi-ties
and citizens ••••" In Oklahoma, the Governor's Commission on Reform of State
Government seems to agree w i. t h th ias posi..t.Lon , 15 TLn th e Comrm. ssi..on , S recent
report, it was recommended that the state "provide for payments to counties of
$6,000 per year for keeping low risk prisoners locally provided they have certi-fied
facilities and offer basic work and treatment programs."
In Kansas, the Community Corrections Act has been passed to divert non-violent
adult and juvenile offenders from prison to alternative community
16 sentences. The Secretary of Corrections is authorized to make grants to
counties for the development, implementation, operation and improvement of
community corrections programs and services. Communities must pay the state for
each offender eligible for community placement that the county chooses to send
6
to prison. The programs are planned by local Community Corrections Advisory
Boards composed of a broad representation from the criminal justice system and
the community. Selected participating counties have decreased prison commitments
from the eligible offense categories by 34 pe rcen t whi Le commitments from non-participating
counties have risen 14 percent. The cost for the community pro-grams
has averaged $2000 per offender while the cost for incarcerating is $11,000
per offender in Kansas. To date, programs have been established primarily in
urban counties where more community resources are available. The prison over-crowding
task force has recommended revising the incentive formula to increase
rural-county participation.
Although one of the effects of such a program may be to increase counties'
compliance with j ail standards, cautions concerning other effects should be
noted. Hinnesota has had a community corrections program since 1973 which
encourages counties and groups of counties to develop a variety of local
corrections services. Local correctional planning has increased and services
have improved, but the numbers of offenders participating have not had a
significant impact on state prison populations. Further, although costs have
varied greatly among participating counties, decentralization on the whole has
been more expensive than the state-operated system. 17
Sentencing Guidelines. The primary purposes for designing sentencing guidelines
have most often been to reduce sentencing disparity and to ensure fixed penalties
for violent crimes. In a recent review of issues concerning sentencing
guidelines compiled by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 18 it was noted
that while some states have developed guidelines with the reminder that "the
capacities of state and local correctional facilities are finite,,,19 other states
bave ignored prison capacity limits when developing guidelines. An example of
the latter case is Pennsylvania where, following enactment of sentencing
guidelines, the governor has recently been compelled to request a large
appropriation for prison construction and renovation. Other Lssue s addressed
in the Department of Corrections analysis suggest that extreme caution be taken
in considering sentencing guidelines since unanticipated consequences could
adversely affect prison population growth.
7
Cost Saving Measures
Legislative Impact Statements. The National Prison Overcrowding Project has
developed or sponsored sixteen working papers addressing issues of overcrowding
and describing and evaluating overcrowding projects in several states. At the
1984 American Corrections Association Congress of Corrections, the director of
the project encouraged corrections professionals to ensure that the solutions
they sought \<ler~systemic, holistic ones. He recommended pursuing cooperative
efforts that recognized the interrelatedness of the various parts of the criminal
justice system: law enforcement, judiciary, defense and prosecuting attorneys,
corrections, parole authorities, public, etc. The Kansas Advisory Committee on
P·r1son Ov ercrow d J1ng 16 reported" 1n 1tS summary th at memb ers "f e1t strong1y th at a
system-wide perspective had to be taken because the combined but uncoordinated
efforts of the criminal justice system lie at the heart of the problem." One
example of specific action that can be taken in this area is legislation
recently enacted in Arkansas.20 It requires that certain bills introduced in
either house of their legislature must have a cost impact statement attached to
it before the committee to which it is assigned can take action on it. Bills
included are those which would (a) affect inmate population patterns by imposing
restrictions on inmate release or increasing intake, or (b) affect programs or
services of the Department of Correction.
Volunteer Programs. The Florida Prison Overcrowding Task ForcelO has recommended
that the legislature "provide resources to solicit and coordinate volunteer
programs at each youthful offender institution." The Arkansas Department of
Correction includes a division of volunteer services which reported it saved the
Department $40,000 in 1983, an amount equivalent to more than 1000 hours at that
, .. 21 state s m1n1mum wage.
Private Sector Contracting. The Oklahoma Department of Corrections contracts
wi th a variety of private agencies for services. One recent agreement which
promises to provide outstanding training opportunities for some female Lnmares
is the contract which establishes an extension of the Howard Johnson reservation
center at the Mabel Bassett Correctional Center. Other contract services range
from therapy for sex offenders to computer data entry for administrative needs.
8
research to
operatl..ons.22
assess private sector involvement
Survey findings indicate health (and
Corrections has sponsored
in prison services and
mental health) care and
In the past year, the National Institute of
residential community services are those most often purchased under contract by
adult corrections agencies. Reduced staffing needs, better quality service and
more cost-efficent operation were the motives most often reported from those
correctional agencies contracting for services. It was the expectation of
correctional administrators surveyed that contracted services will expand, that
whole institutions will be run privately (Kentucky has already issued a Request
for Proposal for a 200-bed minimum security facility), that contracts will become
standardized. that the American Corrections Association will support private
sector involvement and that most growth will be in specialized areas. For
and a variety
Today contained articles concerning
of services provided by contract in
example, a recent
contracted health
24 Canada.
issue
care23
of Corrections
Criminal Justice Information Systems Cooperation. The Arrest Disposition
Reporting System (ADRS) of the Oklahoma District Attorneys is maintained by a
staff at the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. District Attorneys' offices
report charges filed, hearings held and case dispositions. The participation of
DAs statewide is the highest it has been since the program was automated in 1977.
Although not well-known in the state, this program is recognized as exemplary by
the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Criminal Justice Statistics
Association. In a current cooperative program with the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections, ADRS supplies the Department with a monthly computer tape of cases
filed in the state. At ODOC, this list is compared by computer with a roster of
all persons under probation or parole supervision in the Department. Any matches
are distributed to the appropriate Probation and Parole District office so that
the cases may be investigated and the appropriate actions taken. Previously, if
a client from one county committed an offense in another, it was often only by
luck or long hours of court records searching that the supervising officer would
learn of the incident. Since the inception of this inter-agency cooperative
effort in Spring 1984, numerous probationers and parolees have had revocation
proceedings initiated for previously undetected violations. The importance of
such cooperation to the public safety and the effective operation of the Depart-ment
of Corrections will be made more manifest in the near fvture when the
program will be expanded to help monitor House Arrest participants.
9
Other state information systems include data collected from sheriffs,
police and the courts. Like ADRS, the FBI-sponsored Uniform Crime Report
program is also maintained at OSBI. Current data provided by sheriffs and police
for this program are aggregrated counts of offenses and arrests which cannot be
linked directly to either ADRS or ODOC data. However, a national study funded by
the Bureau of Justice Statistics is likely to recommend that UCR reporting be
expanded to include case-specific information which would permit direct links
between this important information and data collected by other agencies in the
criminal justice system. The Administrative Office of the Judiciary in Oklahoma
compiles information regarding court collections and expenditures and court
caseloads. These data are aggregated as civil and criminal case dispositions
with sub-categories such as divorce, traffic, DUI, felony and misdemeanor. 25
An important aspect of the expansion of the Department's House Arrest
Program is assuring public safety. Accurate assessment of the risk of violent
behavior from an inmate is a necessity for this program. The Department has
selected a risk assessment instrument developed in Iowa which came to the
attention of the Department through an article in The Daily Oklahoman newspaper.
It is a well-documented measure, the extended use of which is being supported by
the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Overcrow d ilng17 hiads a so recommen ed
The Kansas Advisory Com~ittee on Prison
use of the instrument in that state.
However, as with other risk measures, it has been determined that juvenile
criminal history is an important indicator of future risk. Currently such data
are not available to the Department of Corrections in Oklahoma.
Actions of the Department of Corrections
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections
will take the following actions to ensure prison population growth is controlled
in a manner which is cost effective and efficient while maintaining public safety:
1. The Oklahoma Department of Corrections will evaluate and report to the
Board of Corrections the impact of "cap" legislation in terms of population
reduction, cost reduction and recidivism.
2. The Oklahoma Department of Corrections will evaluate and report to the Board
of Corrections the impact of the first eix months of House Arrest program
act.Lvi t i es (October 1 - April 1) in terms of population reduction, cost
reduction aLd recidivism. including use of the Iowa R~sk Assessment
Instrument.
10
3. The Oklahoma Department of Corrections will evaluate and report to the Board
of Corrections the feasibility of expanding the use of private sector
contracts to provide equal or improved services at reduced cost to the
taxpayers.
4. In order to increase the acceptance rate of plans provided the court,· the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections, in cooperation with representatives of
the judiciary, will evaluate and report findings to the Board of Corrections
concerning the .administration of the 120-day judicial review legislation.
Recommendations to the Oklahoma Legislature
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Oklahoma State Board of Corrections
recommends the following actions be taken by the Oklahoma Legislature:
1. That legislation be enacted to require that any proposed criminal justice
legislation must include:
a. An impact analysis which will include potential financial and
functional impact on the criminal justice system as a whole, as well
as on individual components, such as the Department of Corrections, and
b. An appropriation which will be sufficient to effect the changes
imposed.
2. That 'vithin 90 days after election or
legislators, state judges and district
Department of Corrections facilities.
appointment,
attorneys be
all freshman
required to
state
tour
3. That the Legislature consider the feasibility of enacting Community Correc-tions
legislation which provides financial assistance to counties and
requires that counties provide correctional services for all offenders with
sentences less than or equal to five years in length.
4. That the Legislature consider with extreme caution any proposal, such as
sentencing guidelines, which, if implemented, could substantially increase
the state's prison population.
5. That the Legislature encourage the development of coordination and coopera-tion
among the criminal justice information systems in Oklahoma by means
which include:
a. Providing continued staff and financial support for ADRS and
encouraging continued DA participation in the program.
b. Providing for the necessary staff and financial support that would
permit case specific reporting of UCR statistics, including staff,
training and encouragement to police and sheriffs to ensure complete
and accurate data.
11
c. Ensuring approval from the appropriate sources for the Oklahoma Depart-ment
of Human Services to release juvenile criminal history data for
persons who have been placed in the custody of the Oklahoma Department
of Corrections.
d. Ensuring changes or additions in recording codes be made so that the
use of alternatives to incarceration such as deferred prosecution,
dispute resolution, non-violent intermediate offender sentencing and
120-day judicial review, as well as sentence-lengthening actions such
as filing "after former conviction of a felony" (AFCF), may be properly
evaluated.
e. Ensuring use of reporting codes, such as statute numbers corresponding
to offenses, race categories, etc., ip standardized among the criminal
justice information systems in the state.
12
References
1. Oklahoma State Board of Corrections. Monthly Report for September 198~,
Oklahoma Department of Corrections, October 1984.
2. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Prisoners in 1983, Bureau of Justice Statis-tics
Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice, April 1984.
3. Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Weekly Inmate Accounting Sheet for
April 16, 1984 to April 22, 1984.
4. Cory, B. and Gettinger, S. Time to Build? The Realities of Prison Construc-tion.
New York: Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, 1984.
5. Washington Crime News Services. Pennsylvania Corrections Dept. Building
Seven Modular Dorms, Corrections Digest, 15 (21): 3, October, 1984.
6. Corrections budget information from Ohio and California is based on
telephone conversations with the Chief of Business Administration and
Chief of Construction Support, respectively.
7. Oklahoma District Attorneys Training Coordination Council. Oklahoma
Statutory Alternatives to Incarceration, Oklahoma City: DATCC,
January 19, 1984.
8. Travisono, D. (Editor) 1984 Vital Statistics in Corrections, College Park,
HD: American Correctional Association, 1984.
9. Arrest Disposition Reporting System. Felony Disposition Summary, State
Total, January 1, 1983 - December 31, 1983, Oklahoma State Bureau of
Investigation, March 2, 1984.
10. Corrections Overcrowding Task Force. Final Report and Recommendations,
Florida Corrections Overcrowding Task Force, 1983.
11. Berman, L.N. Meeting the Goals of Sentencing: The Client Specific Plan.
New England Journal of Criminal and Civil Confinement, 9(2):331-342,
Summer 1983. and Hoelter, H.J. Make the Sentence Fit the Felon, The
Judges' Journal, 21(1):48-54, American Bar Association, Winter 1982.
12. Florida Department of Corrections, Community Control, Departmental Hono-graph,
April, 1984.
13. Iowa Code Annotated, Chapter 905, Community-Based Correctional Program,
pp. 3649-3651.
14. Harris, M. Kay. Community Service by Offenders, National Institute of
Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, January 1979.
15. Oklahoma Commission on Reform of State Government. Report by the Government
Structure Study Committee, October 11, 1984.
16. Kansas Adivsory Committee on Prison Overcrowding. Controlling Overcrowding
in the Kansas Prison System, January 1984.
17. Minnesota Department of Corrections.
1983.
Biennial Report: 1981-1982, January
18. Davis, S. Sentencing Guidelines Issues, Oklahoma Department of Corrections,
Planning and Research Unit, October 22, 1984.
19. Senter.~ing Guidelines Commission.
October 1, 1983.
Florida Sentencing Guidelines Manual,
20. Arkansas Senate Bill 507, State of Arkansas, 74th General Assembly, Regular .
Session, 1983.
21. Arkansas Department of Corrections, Annual Report January 1981 - June 1983,
State of Arkansas, May 1984.
22. Camp, C.G. and Camp, G.M. Private Sector Involvement in Prison Services and
Operations, South Salem, New York: Criminal Justice Institute,
February 1984.
23. Moore, J. Contracted Health Care--New Approach to an Old Problem,
Corrections Today, 46(4):20-24, August 1984.
24. Zeitoun, L. Contract Services--the Canadian Experience, Corrections Today,
46(4):16-18, August 1984.
25. Adm inis trat ive 0ff ice 0f the Jud iciary • _A_n~n~u_a_l~_R"!,,,_e_,.tj_,hp__eo__~rO_tk_~lo__an~h~o~m~a_
Judiciary, 1982-1983, Supreme Court of Oklahoma, January 2, 1984.

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

C5700.3 P8311984 c. 2
OKLAHOMA STATE
BOARD OF CORRECTIONS
Recommendations for Controlling
Prison Population Growth:
A Response to HB 1483
November 29, 1984
OKLAHOMA PUBLICATIONS Cl£~~'"Q"QU~\
OKLAHOMA OEPARTMENT OF'LIBRf\RlU
200 N. E. 18th ST.
OKLAHOMA erN, OK 13-105 ..
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
3~OO N. EASTERN - ? O. BOX i 1H3
1"'\ v, ~ U("'\,\A ~ r-ITV t"\V! '\ ~.~ \4 .,. 7"!! 1
Oklahoma State Board of Corrections
Recommendations for Controlling
Oklahoma's Prison Population
Introduction
In House Bill 1483, the Oklahoma Board of Corrections was directed by the
State Legislature to present "recommendations for reducing prison population,
accomodating projected needs for prison population and cost-saving measures ••••"
The purpose of this report is to present those recommendations in the context of
past and present prison population control efforts in Oklahoma and the rest of
the nation.
The pressures of prison population growth nationwide have forced states to
investigate numerous alternatives to incarceration. Oklahoma is among those
states t hat have developed a variety of options for limiting prison population
while still providing ef f ect Lve sanctions for offenders. In fact, many of the
programs which are now being recognized and adopted elsewhere as effective means
of population control are already being used in Oklahoma.
At the t Lme the request for recommendations was made by the Legislature,
prison population growth was a primary concern of the Department of Corrections.
However, because of the emergency "cap" legislation and programs such as that fur
DUI offenders, the expansion of the House Arrest program and the increased
capacity of facilities, the need to invoke emergency release legislation has
been removed. It: is expected that continued development and utilization of
options other than "cap" will make it unnecessary in the foreseeable future to
rely on emergency release of prisoners to control prison population. Indeed, the
recommendations presented here are made with the aim of maintaining the control
over prison population which has now been regained in Oklahoma.
Background
It has been noted that three factors contribute to prison population
overcrowdt ng : the number of offenders sent to prison, the length of time they
stay in prison, and the capacity of the prison to which they are sent. Over the
past decade, the numbers of persons being sent to prison have increased
drastically nationwide and new legislation has often created harsher sanctions
1
with longer sentences. Oklahoma has been no exception; the prison population in
this state more than doubled from the end of 1974 through 1983, climbing from
3,230 to 7,480 inmates.1 Oklahoma was one of only five states to report yearly
increases in prison poptilationof at least 10 percent from 1980 through 1983. In
1983, Oklahoma had one of the highest incarceration rates in the country, 212
inmates per 100,000 state population.2 At its highest in April 1984, the prison
population surpassed 8,000.3 The state's incarceration rate was then about 240
per 100,000. These increases were caused not only by changes in crime, apprehen-sion
and prosecution, but also by harsher statutory sanctions. New laws passed
during the precedi~g decade provided minimum mandatory periods of incarceration
for repeat offenders so more inmates were staying in prison longer.
Nationally, efforts to offset these two forces driving prison population
increases have often centered on increasing the capacity of institutions.
According to one report, "The overcrowdi.ng crisis••• produced an unprecedented
national spending binge on corrections construction. From 1979 to 1980, con-struction
expenditures rose from $74 million to $560 million; by 1982, they had
more than doubled again, to $946 million.,,4 In Oklahoma, new facilities were
built, old ones were expanded and existing buildings were acquired from other
agencies. The corrections budget rose from about $18 million in FY75 to over
$110 million in FY85.
Construction is still the solution of choice in sorae states. In Hichigan
and Pennsylvania, recent requests have been made for budget allocations to
increase prison capacity.5 With the impetus of a court order, Ohio has made
plans to spend $638 million on new construction and renovation which they hope to
finance by selling bonds. In California, $1.2 billion has been budgeted for new
construction alone.6 Corey and Gettinger4 make the point that "the cost of
construction, staggering as it is, is only the beginning •••• The cost of
building a prison is only the down payment; operating costs will soon outstrip
it. The operating costs for 100,000 new prison beds would be $70 billion over
the next 30 years--not counting inflation."
Within the last few years, an increasing number of such assessments of the
construction solution to prison overcrowdang have provided evidence that other
solutions must be tried. "Alternatives to incarceration" has become an oft-used
phrase to describe those options which seek to limit the cumber of people sent
to prison and the length of time they stay there. The National Institute for
Sentencing Alternatives. the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives,
"L
the National Center for Effective Public Policy, as well as other local and
national organizations have focused their efforts on, not only identifying the
problems of incarceration, but also identifying feasible and acceptable alterna-tives.
In the following two sections, case disposition options available in
Okldhoma and in other states are reviewed.
Programs Used in Oklahoma and Other States
Commonly Used Alternatives. In January 1984, the District Attorneys Training
Coordination Council produced a list of sixteen statutory alternatives to incar-ceration
which may be invoked in Oklahoma:7
1. Fines
2. Forfeitures
3. County Jail Time
4. Confinement in a Drug Treatment or Rehabilitation Facility
5. Commitment to an Approved Drug or Alcohol Treatment Facility
6. Deferred Judgment (sometimes referred to as Deferred Sentencing)
7. Deferred Prosecutions
8. Suspended Sentences which may include
a. probation
b. restitution to the victim
c. reimbursement to state agencies for a victim's hospital and medical
expense
d. community service without compensation
e. payment to a trust fund for a victim
9. Split Sentences (part served, part suspended)
10. Night or weekend incarceration in a county jail
11. Referral to the Bogus Check Restitution program
12. Paroles
13. Department of Corrections statutory administrative reduction in sentences
for good time credits, work credits, education credits
14. Nonviolent Intermediate Offender Act (NIO)
15. Sentence modification after 120-day review (120JR)
16. Dispute Resolution Act
Among the sentencing options described above are many which are used in one
form or another in other states.
Assoc1..at10n 8f ouna'h t at the most
A recent report from the American Corrections
often used alternatives to incarceration
were probation, split sentences and shock probation, restitution, community
9 service and fines. According to the annual Felony Disposition Summary of the
Arrest Disposition Reporting System, the District Attorneys' information system,
25.3 percent of the sentenced felony cases were given probation in 1983, 15.2
3
percent were given split sentencest 24.5 percent received deferred judgments and
3.9 percenr received fines only. Unfortunately, some of the options listed above
(e.g., deferred prosecutio~, night or weekend incarceration, NIO) 120JR and
dispute resolution) are not being recorded, or are being under-reported) so an
accurate assessment of the extent to which these alternatives are being used is
not currently possible.
Alcohol Abuse Programs. One significant addition to the preceding list was made
during the 1984 legislative session under HB1034. The law provides that eligi-ble
persons incarcerated for DUI are to be assigned to the Department of Mental
Health for substance abuse treatment. This program will substantially expand the
Alternatives to Incarceration for Drunk Drivers (AIDD) program that already
operates in Western State Hospital and is much like one proposed by the Florida
Overcrowding Task ForcelO for that state.
Individual Punishment Plans. The aforementioned National Center on Institutions
and Alternatives (NCIA) directs a program for "the development of effective
alternatives to incarceration consistent with public safety." Under their
Client Specific Planning, NCIA has "worked directly with defense attorneys to
develop individualized J highly-structured, alternative to prison, sentencing
plans" which consider the client's resources and the community's needs. 11 In
order to administer the non-violent intermediate offender and 120-day judicial
review programs in Oklahoma, the Department of Corrections has established a
similar.procedure for case handling. For each qualifying inmate, a Specialized
Offender Accountability Plan (SOAP) is developed based on a thorough assessment
of the person's criminal history, f£mily support, skills, social, psychological
and training needs. These plans, which may require restitution and fine pay-ment
s, community service and treatment program participation, are submitted to
the court directly, rather than through a defense attorney. For the non-violent
youthful offender who had previously been given an indeterminate sentence, the
plan takes effect after fifteen days if not challenged. About 80 percent of the
plans have been accepted as proposed. On the other hand, the 120-day judicial
review offenders receive a specific sentence from the court before being incar-cerated.
Alternative plans have been deemed appropriate and developed by the
Department for about half of these cases. However, the courts have been reluc-tant
to change sentence~ already decided and only about seven percent of those
plans have been accepted.
4
Emergency Powers Legislation. In 1984, Senate Bill 445 was enacted as the
Oklahoma prison overcrowding emergency powers act. The "cap" legisla tion, as it
is called, permits awarding 60 days of emergency time credit to qualified
offenders when the prison population exceeds 95 percent of capacity. After its
first use, the emergency powers act may be invoked every 60 days while population
exceeds the capacity limit. Oklahoma's law is similar to legislation passed in
Michigan according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.2 As a direct result of
their emergency powers act, the Hichigan prison population decreased by six
percent in 1983. Three other states with over 10,000 inmates, Florida, Texas and
North Carolina, had declining populations in 1983 and all had early release
programs.
Oklahoma's "cap" legislation was first invoked in May 1984, then again in
July and September. The impact of those 487 emergency releases, combined with
the effects of other Departmental programs, has been to nearly halt the state's
previously rapid prison population growth. This means that, for the first time
since 1979, Oklahoman's may have hope that the state's prison population growth
has become manageable and that the Corrections budget will reflect this
stability.
House Arrest Programs. Another bill considered by the 1984 legislature is
significant because it was not passed. Passage of the mandatory community
supervision legislation was thwarted by the Governor's threatened veto. Instead
it was suggested that the same control could be gained through expansion of the
existing House Arrest Program. Based on direction from the Governor, President
Pro Tempore of the Senate and Speaker of the House, and with budgetary support,
the Department has moved forward with development and implementation of this
program.
House Arrest provides an effective means of re-integrating offenders into
the community in a productive role while ensuring close supervision and control.
When fully implemented, it will also provide the Department a means of main-taining
the control over growth of the incarcerated population that has been
established by emergency release and other programs and legislative action.
A similar program called Community Control has been developed in Florida.
"The 'community con t r ol ees ' as they are called, are confined to their homes
under 'house arrest' except during hours of employment or other activities
approved by t he Commun. lty Cantra 1 Off l.cer. ,,12
5
In Oklahoma, offenders are monitored closely by Correctional Officers. To
ensure this close supervision, House Arrest officers' caseloads are smaller than
the typical Probation and Parole officer's. The offender is required to be gain-fully
employed at all times and residing at an approved residence. The offender
must also report to a prison weekly and submit a report of weekly activities.
Program support fees, restitution, court costs and victim compensation are
required of house arrestees, as we l l as participation in group or counseling
activities.
Programs of Other States Not Used in Oklahoma
Community Corrections. The Iowa State Legislature has developed legislation
to establish a "judicial district department of correctional services" in each
judicial district of the state to "furnish or contract for those services
necessary to provide a community-based correctional program which meets the needs
of that judicial district." The program is designed to "supervise and assist
individuals who are charged with or have been convicted of a felony, an aggra-vated
misdemeanor or a serious misdemeanor." The state department of social
servi ces is designated to allocate state funds for di strIbut Lon to approved
13 programs.
A National Institute of Corrections report14 has recommended "involvement
of offenders in community service" because it may "reduce public stereotypes
about offenders and increase public involvement in and awareness of the criminal
justice system." In addition, "invaluable services are afforded to the communi-ties
and citizens ••••" In Oklahoma, the Governor's Commission on Reform of State
Government seems to agree w i. t h th ias posi..t.Lon , 15 TLn th e Comrm. ssi..on , S recent
report, it was recommended that the state "provide for payments to counties of
$6,000 per year for keeping low risk prisoners locally provided they have certi-fied
facilities and offer basic work and treatment programs."
In Kansas, the Community Corrections Act has been passed to divert non-violent
adult and juvenile offenders from prison to alternative community
16 sentences. The Secretary of Corrections is authorized to make grants to
counties for the development, implementation, operation and improvement of
community corrections programs and services. Communities must pay the state for
each offender eligible for community placement that the county chooses to send
6
to prison. The programs are planned by local Community Corrections Advisory
Boards composed of a broad representation from the criminal justice system and
the community. Selected participating counties have decreased prison commitments
from the eligible offense categories by 34 pe rcen t whi Le commitments from non-participating
counties have risen 14 percent. The cost for the community pro-grams
has averaged $2000 per offender while the cost for incarcerating is $11,000
per offender in Kansas. To date, programs have been established primarily in
urban counties where more community resources are available. The prison over-crowding
task force has recommended revising the incentive formula to increase
rural-county participation.
Although one of the effects of such a program may be to increase counties'
compliance with j ail standards, cautions concerning other effects should be
noted. Hinnesota has had a community corrections program since 1973 which
encourages counties and groups of counties to develop a variety of local
corrections services. Local correctional planning has increased and services
have improved, but the numbers of offenders participating have not had a
significant impact on state prison populations. Further, although costs have
varied greatly among participating counties, decentralization on the whole has
been more expensive than the state-operated system. 17
Sentencing Guidelines. The primary purposes for designing sentencing guidelines
have most often been to reduce sentencing disparity and to ensure fixed penalties
for violent crimes. In a recent review of issues concerning sentencing
guidelines compiled by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 18 it was noted
that while some states have developed guidelines with the reminder that "the
capacities of state and local correctional facilities are finite,,,19 other states
bave ignored prison capacity limits when developing guidelines. An example of
the latter case is Pennsylvania where, following enactment of sentencing
guidelines, the governor has recently been compelled to request a large
appropriation for prison construction and renovation. Other Lssue s addressed
in the Department of Corrections analysis suggest that extreme caution be taken
in considering sentencing guidelines since unanticipated consequences could
adversely affect prison population growth.
7
Cost Saving Measures
Legislative Impact Statements. The National Prison Overcrowding Project has
developed or sponsored sixteen working papers addressing issues of overcrowding
and describing and evaluating overcrowding projects in several states. At the
1984 American Corrections Association Congress of Corrections, the director of
the project encouraged corrections professionals to ensure that the solutions
they sought \